-
We are following the situation closely. As it continues to develop, we will do our best to communicate with you. Updates will be provided here as they become available.
-
Conscience and COVID Vaccination
Bishop Liam Cary
26 August 2021
In the past year the Catholic Church has repeatedly endorsed the moral acceptability of COVID-19 vaccines and actively encourages people to receive them.
Now controversy is swirling over whether to make COVID vaccination mandatory. To address this question properly, it will be good to review key components of Catholic moral guidance for this time of pandemic.
1. Vaccination against COVID-19 is a lifesaving, pandemic-quelling measure which the Church encourages Catholics to take in good conscience in order to protect their own health and the health of the community in which they live. In the words of Pope Francis, “Vaccination is a simple but profound way of promoting the common good and caring for each other, especially the most vulnerable.” The decision to be vaccinated, the Latin American bishops say, should be seen as a direct act of care for life—for one’s own life, for the life of one’s family, for the lives of one’s neighbors.
2. Catholics must form their conscience by carefully thinking through their situation in light of the revealed wisdom of God and the teaching of the Church. They should seek to align their decision about vaccines with the mind of the Church, paying heed to official statements that approve and encourage the reception of COVID-19 vaccines out of concern for the common good.
3. Nonetheless, official Catholic teaching also makes clear that vaccination is not a universal moral obligation. Each person must evaluate his or her own health situation and personally decide which medical interventions to accept or not to accept. In light of one's personal medical history an individual Catholic may legitimately question the appropriateness of a newly developed vaccine for his or her own health as well as its long-term effectiveness for the health of the community. Such considerations may lead the person to decide in conscience not to receive the vaccine.
4. A person who reaches sure judgment of conscience must follow it. For this reason, the Church teaches, vaccination should not be mandatory. Governments, institutions, and employers should not force people to go against their conscience nor penalize them for acting on it. Rather, faithful to American tradition, they should provide exemptions for religious, medical, or conscientious objection to vaccines. In a democracy like ours, the health of the individual conscience is a vital aspect of the common good.
5. Those whose conscience directs them to decline vaccination do not cease to share responsibility for the common good; they must conscientiously avoid transmitting the virus to others, especially the elderly, those with weakened immune systems, and co-workers.__________________
On 25 August 2021 the Oregon Health Authority published the “COVID-19 Vaccine Religious Exception Request Form,” which asks the applicant to “describe your religious belief and how it affects your ability to receive a COVID-19 vaccination.” To be granted a religious exemption from the Governor’s vaccine mandate, the applicant must submit a signed personal response on this form to the Oregon Health Authority for approval. No other documentation is required.
Catholics who wish to file for religious exemption would do well to consult a document from the National Catholic Bioethics Center and adapt it to their circumstances. The “NCBC Vaccine Exemption Template Letter” ( https://www.ncbcenter.org/ncbc-news/vaccineletter) explains Catholic teaching in a way that will help applicants give personal expression to the beliefs and reasoning that underlie their petition, especially those who are concerned about the role of abortion-derived materials in vaccine development.
Statement in PDF format
Statement of Bishop Cary
on the Sunday Mass Obligation
25 June 2021
On Friday, 25 June, Governor Kate Brown announced that Oregon’s COVID-19 restrictions will cease to be in effect by Wednesday, 30 June.In light of this development, I hereby withdraw the general dispensation from the obligation to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days, which has been in effect in the Diocese of Baker since the outbreak of the pandemic, and reinstate the obligation effective the weekend of 3-4 July 2021. The ordinary exceptions to the obligation to attend Sunday Mass prior to the dispensation—sickness, fear of infection, or debilitating anxiety, for example—now come back into force as valid reasons to absent oneself from Mass. In case of doubt or confusion about this or other important matters of conscience, it is always advisable to consult with your pastor.
Given in Redmond, this 25th day of June 2021.
Most Reverend Liam Cary
Bishop of Baker
Back to Normal at Mass:
Undoing COVID-19 Liturgical Restrictions14 May 2021
Brothers and Sisters in Christ,
Grace to you and peace in the Risen Lord.
Some months ago, Governor Kate Brown took note of the Supreme Court’s decisive interventions to undo state and city restrictions on church gatherings throughout the nation. The new legal climate, the Governor acknowledged, led her to change her “orders” about churches to “recommendations” that were not legally enforceable.
This week she did away with most of the orders as well in the wake of new CDC guidance on 13 May, which does not require fully vaccinated people to wear a mask or physically distance in most public places, including churches.
In light of these developments, it is time to do away with diocesan safety precautions mandated for our parishes a year ago (30 April 2020). With this letter they are officially abrogated.
In particular, it is no longer necessary to maintain social distancing or encourage the wearing of facemasks. Of course, people are free to attend church with masks on; but those who serve in a public role at Mass are not to wear masks: priests, deacons, acolytes, altar servers, readers, Eucharistic ministers, ushers, greeters.
Measures to shorten the time for Mass are no longer necessary. Entrance and exit processions should take place. Ushers should take up the Collection and bring it forward to the priest in the Offertory procession. Choirs should sing as before, and the people should join them.
Missalettes should return to the pews, and parish bulletins to the vestibules; but volunteers need no longer sanitize pews between Masses. Priests, deacons, and Eucharistic ministers are not to use hand sanitizer in the sanctuary before and after giving Holy Communion. (Eucharistic ministers may do so in the pew before coming forward, but not in the sanctuary.)
As we take up our normal way of worship once again, let us be mindful especially of the people of India, who continue to suffer the ravages of COVID-19. May our good God restore good health to them as He has so kindly done for us.
In Christ our Lord,
Bishop Liam Cary
LETTER of BISHOP CARY
On COVID-19 VACCINES
5 February 2021In our COVID-battered world the arrival of vaccinations has raised hopes of longed-for relief. But the highly complex circumstances that produced the vaccines in record time, not least their links to abortion research, have caused many to question whether we can take them in good conscience.
It falls to the pope and the bishops to provide authoritative guidance so faithful Catholics can make conscience-forming distinctions in a time of confusion and find peace of soul in the midst of turmoil.
COVID-19 is not the first pandemic the Catholic Church has had to confront in her history, so she does not engage it with a mind like an empty slate. In the last two decades the Church has given repeated scrutiny to the use of cell lines from aborted fetuses in vaccine research and development, to discern different degrees of cooperation with evil acts of others on the part both of those who produce vaccines and of those who receive them.
Toward that end, it must be noted that none of the three vaccines currently (or soon to be) available resulted from new abortions. Rather, researchers make use of materials from the bodies of fetuses aborted previously, such as one in Holland in 1973 from which a fetal cell line was derived. The moral status of the vaccines, therefore, turns on the relationship each of them has to that 1973 fetal cell line or others like it.
What matters morally is whether the drug company used the abortion-derived cell line (1) in all phases of development (design, manufacture, and testing); (2) in some phases, for example, confirmatory testing and manufacturing; or (3) only to confirm the vaccine's efficacy after it had been produced, but in no other phase of development.
Pfizer and Moderna took the latter route (#3). Syringes that inject these vaccines do not introduce into the body of the recipient any material obtained from an abortion. In the case of these two vaccines the connection with the original evil of abortion decades ago is very remote. That abortion did not affect the shaping or the making of the end-product vaccines; it only played a (dispensable) part in confirming their reliability.
In contrast, the AstraZeneca vaccine was extracted from a cell culture that included abortion-derived cell lines (option #1), thereby involving a presumably deliberate willingness on the part of the company to capitalize on the unjust taking of an innocent human life.
All that being said, it is realistic to assume that most people will not be given a choice between the Pfizer/Moderna and AstraZeneca vaccines; they will simply have to take what is offered them. "In view of the gravity of the current pandemic and the lack of availability of alternative vaccines," Archbishop Joseph Naumann and Bishop Kevin Rhoades conclude in their December statement for the American bishops, “inoculation with the new COVID-19 vaccines in these circumstances can be morally justified." Why? Because the reasons to accept the ... Pfizer and Moderna [vaccines] are sufficiently serious to justify their use," especially in view of “their [very] remote connection to morally compromised cell lines."
The "sufficiently serious" reasons include the preservation of health and the saving of life. Who would have such reasons? According to Father Tad Pacholczyk of the National Catholic Bioethics Center, the elderly and those with co-morbidities like diabetes, obesity, or respiratory disease "are among the highest risk groups for adverse outcomes from [COVID-19] infection" and "would clearly have a serious reason" to be vaccinated.
Father Pacholczyk reaches the same conclusion as the American bishops: "While it is a personal decision of conscience as to whether or not to accept a vaccine, it is important to be clear that the Church ... does not require us to decline it on such grounds in the face of serious reasons."
Out of concern for the profound threat to public and personal health that COVID-19 poses, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in its authoritative letter of 21 December 2020 allows for inoculation even with the morally compromised AstraZeneca vaccine (as do the two American bishops).
When health authorities do not permit citizens to choose their vaccine or when "ethically irreproachable COVID-19 vaccines are not available," the Congregation says, "it is morally acceptable to receive COVID-19 vaccines that have used cell lines from aborted fetuses in their research and production process." In the face of the otherwise uncontrollable spread of a serious pathological agent [like the Coronavirus), ... all vaccinations recognized as clinically safe and effective can be used in good conscience with the certain knowledge that the use of such vaccines does not constitute formal cooperation with the abortion from which the cells used in production of the vaccines derive." In other words, the decision to accept the AstraZena vaccine in our current circumstances does not involve the commission of sin.
The Congregation hastens to point out that the use of AstraZeneca and like vaccines in the COVID conditions that make it licit "does not in itself constitute a legitimation, even indirect, of the practice of abortion, and necessarily assumes the opposition to this practice "on the part of those so vaccinated. Context-specific approval of the use of AstraZeneca "does not and should not in any way imply ... a moral endorsement of the use of cell lines proceeding from aborted fetuses."
******
For those who wish to think through these issues in more detail, I refer you to the following sources, which I found very helpful:
"Answers to Key Ethical Questions About COVID-19 Vaccines" from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
https://www.usccb.org/resources/Answers%20to%20Key% 20Ethical%20Questions%20About% 20COVID-19%20Vaccines.pdf
Pints with Aquinas podcast with Jimmy Akin, "The Vatican on the Morality of COVID Vaccines."
https://pintswithaquinas.com/the-vatican-on-morality-of- covid-vaccines-w-jimmy-akin/
Print format of this letter
BISHOP LIAM CARY
STATEMENT ON FACE MASKS AT MASS
28 AUGUST 2020
Last spring, at the request of the American bishops, a national working group of Catholic doctors, medical scientists, theologians, liturgists, and pastors put their minds together to propose how best to celebrate Mass during the COVID-19 pandemic. They first considered the nature of the novel coronavirus and the medical challenges it presents. Then, in light of this knowledge, they explored how best to adapt the parts of the Mass in ways that would assure both safety from infection and liturgical reverence.On 27 April the group made a thorough and detailed report available to bishops throughout the United States. Its guidelines were not mandatory; each bishop was free to adopt as few or as many of them as he wished. But many dioceses paid careful heed to the suggestions and adapted them to their local circumstances, including the Diocese of Baker. On 24 July the working group issued a follow-up report; from that document quotations in the following paragraphs are taken.
For the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) “close contact” means “being within 6 feet of a person for at least 15 minutes.” At times during Mass people come closer than 6 feet, but never for 15 minutes at a time. The reception of Holy Communion, for example, like waiting in the checkout line at Safeway or Walgreen’s, requires only a few brief moments of close proximity; and “a momentary interaction presents an acceptable risk, especially if other precautions are taken.”
One of those precautions is wearing face masks. The report recommends this practice, with a significant exception that calls for explanation. The authors point out that “the Mass is imbued with powerful sacramental and liturgical symbolism” built up over two millennia. Within this world of sacred symbols the Church enacts the full scope of Catholic aspiration; over time, faithful attendance at Sunday Mass clarifies and deepens its dramatic significance. Only from ongoing liturgical participation can a person gain an appreciation of the central importance the Mass holds for Catholics—an appreciation that people unfamiliar with Catholic life cannot share. If they happen to be government officials, our right to religious liberty reminds us, their status does not empower them to tell the Church how to conduct the worship of God. In this country the state does not “establish” a church; churches do. With responsible regard for community health and safety, it is for the Catholic Church to establish the meaning and manner of its worship without having to render an account to Caesar.
Religious freedom is in the background of the working group’s strong and clear conclusion on face-coverings: “The priest celebrant and other ministers (deacons, servers, lectors) should not wear masks . . . during the celebration of Mass” because they will be more than 6 feet from the congregation; and at such a distance “there is no substantial risk of infection.” However, as noted above, “a momentary interaction presents an acceptable risk”; therefore, the authors recommend that a priest not wear a mask for the distribution of Holy Communion during Mass.
But physical hygiene is not the only consideration. Masks at the liturgy create serious symbolic confusion as well. At Mass the priest takes the place of Jesus. Covering the face of the celebrant goes directly against the oft-repeated scriptural cry of the heart to God: “Hide not Your face from me. Show me Your face.” In view of his sacred role in the liturgy, the report observes, a masked priest “would be a detrimental counter-sign” of division and danger rather than of openness and peace.
The expert working group “carefully considered” the manner of receiving Holy Communion and concluded that “it is possible to distribute on the tongue without unreasonable risk” to those who come at the end of the line for Communion or to a separate Communion station.
In the Diocese of Baker the above-mentioned recommendations of the expert working group have informed my instructions to our priests from the re-opening of Masses in mid-May to the present.
- “Priests and extraordinary ministers may not wear masks or face coverings when distributing Holy Communion” (Decree, 11 May)
- “All ministers of Holy Communion must sanitize their hands immediately after receiving Holy Communion themselves and prior to distributing Holy Communion to the faithful” (11 May).
- “Holy Communion in the hand is strongly encouraged” (11 May), but in discussions with priests I have made it clear that reception on the tongue is not to be denied.
- “Please advise your parishioners of [Governor Brown’s order of 29 June requiring face coverings in public places] and continue our practice of encouraging them to wear masks” (Memo to priests, 30 June).
- “Those who are reluctant to [wear masks] we should treat with patience and kindness; no one should be turned away from church. As previously stated, priests are not to wear a mask while celebrating Mass” (30 June).
As is well known, people choose not to wear a mask for many reasons: psychological (memories of traumatic experiences); medical (bad physical effects); and conscientious (First Amendment). Who can tell why a face is uncovered? Woe to us if we reach the point of demanding an answer as the price of admission to the House of Prayer.
Most Reverend Liam Cary
Bishop of Baker
Statement in PDF format
8 August 2020
Governor Kate Brown
Attn: Citizens' Representative
900 Court St., Suite 254
Salem, Oregon 97301-4047Dear Governor Brown,As Bishop of the Diocese of Baker it is my responsibility to oversee Catholic education in Central and Eastern Oregon. On behalf of Catholic parish schools in Bend, Redmond, Ontario, and The Dalles, I must write in objection to your 28 July decision to impose comprehensive distance learning throughout the state. This sudden change of course seriously undermines our schools' prospects for safe and successful re-opening from the COVID-19 shutdown.In the past few months principals and teachers at these four schools have set about with great dedication to meet the guidelines issued by the Oregon Health Authority on 10 June, "Safe Schools, Ready Learners," which allowed private schools to choose the instructional model best suited to their location. Having developed their own individualized protocols, principals submitted their plans, confident that our schools would be able to open for in-person instruction in the fall.Recent guidance from authoritative sources gave them good grounds to think their hopes realistic. The American Academy of Pediatrics "strongly advocates that all policy considerations for the coming school year should start with a goal of having students physically present in school," because, as the CDC stated late last month, "the available evidence provides reason to believe that in-person schooling is in the best interest of students."On the basis of reports from countries that have opened schools, the CDC goes on to assert that "COVID-19 poses low risks to school-aged children." Mid-July CDC statistics bear this out: "children and adolescents under 18 years old account for under 7 percent of COVID-19 cases and less than 0.1 percent of COVID-19 related deaths." On the rare occasions when they become infected, "they are far less likely to suffer severe symptoms" and "are unlikely to be major drivers of the spread of the virus." If they were, an English researcher concluded, "We would have expected to find more clusters linked to schools. That's not what we found." Science magazine concurred: "At least when local infection rates are low, opening schools with some precautions does not seem to cause a significant jump in infections elsewhere."Though in-school classes pose little risk of infection for children, comprehensive instruction from afar puts their education at risk, for children do not learn by screens alone. Poor, minority, or disabled students with limited or no internet access cannot efficiently accommodate themselves to distance learning; school closures that enforce it seem to have worsened longstanding achievement gaps.But a diet of pure distance learning is not sufficient nourishment for computer-connected students either. As the CDC points out: "In an in-person school environment children more easily learn how to develop and maintain friendships, how to behave in groups, and how to interact and form relationships with people outside their family .... Such routine in-person contacts provide opportunities to facilitate social-emotional development that are difficult, if not impossible, to replicate through distance learning." In the judgement of 1500 members of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, overreliance on remote instruction risks "scarring the life chances of a generation of young people."These experts seem to second a remark you made in the press conference of 28 July: "If we don't do this right ... the very functioning of our schools could deepen existing disparities in opportunities and outcomes for our children, and widen racial and socioeconomic inequality in our society." I agree. And I believe we'll be more likely to "do this right" if you re-establish the June guidelines for private schools and permit them to re-open as planned.
-
MEMO
TO: The priests of the Diocese of Baker
FROM: Bishop Cary
DATE: 30 June 2020
Dear Brother Priests,
On 29 June Governor Brown announced that throughout the state Oregonians will be required to wear face coverings in public places as of 1 July. Please advise your parishioners of this and continue our practice of encouraging them to wear masks.
Those who are reluctant to do so, we should treat with patience and kindness; no one should be turned away from church. As previously stated, priests are not to wear a mask while celebrating Mass.
Official Memo in pdf -
DECREE
OPENING PARISH CHURCHES
TO THE CELEBRATION OF PUBLIC MASSUpdate of Decrees of 19 March 2020 and 7 April 2020
On Measures in Response to the COVID-19 Threat
Whereas Governor Kate Brown has set in motion a phased-in loosening of social gathering restrictions put in place to stop the spread of the coronavirus;
Whereas County Commissioners throughout Oregon are currently proposing detailed revisions to those directives;
This is an appropriate time to begin the re-opening of Catholic worship, with diligent precaution for the danger the virus poses to those most vulnerable to infection.
Therefore, in virtue of my duty to direct, promote, and guard the liturgical life of the Diocese of Baker, I hereby revoke the 19 March and 7 April cancellations of all public Masses within the territory of the Diocese, and I decree that priests are free to commence public celebration of the Eucharist in their churches on Monday, 11 May 2020.
I further decree that a basic component of the March and April decrees remains in effect: “all the faithful of the Diocese of Baker and others actually present in the Diocese are dispensed from the obligation to attend Mass on Sundays and other holy days of obligation” (c. 1247). Those whom space does not allow to go to Sunday Mass must keep the spirit of the Lord’s Day by refraining from work and devoting time to prayer. They would do well to watch a livestreamed Mass and make a spiritual communion. They should also take advantage of the opportunity to reserve a place at Mass during the week.
I hereby encourage yet again all vulnerable, at-risk, and seriously worried people to stay home and not expose themselves to the danger of infection. Anyone with the slightest symptoms or feelings of sickness must stay home so as not to infect others.
When Masses resume, priests must take care to observe the “COVID-19 Guidance for Faith Communities” issued by the Oregon Health Authority 9 April 2020, which specifically allows religious services for no more than 25 people with strict social distancing. A parish that is unable to maintain strict social distancing cannot open Masses to the public until it is able to do so.
A document of mine sent to the priests on 30 April 2020 (“Re-opening of Masses to the Public”) contains practical instructions to insure congregational safety and distribute Mass attendance evenly throughout the week. Two of these are worthy of note here: the wearing of face masks at Mass is strongly encouraged, and members of a single household may sit together without observing social distancing with one another.
I order that this decree and dispensation be made known to all concerned, especially pastors and administrators.
This decree takes effect immediately.
Given at the Pastoral Center of the Diocese of Baker this 7th day of May 2020, everything to the contrary notwithstanding.
Most Reverend Liam Cary
Bishop of Baker
(Seal)
Very Reverend Richard O. FischerVicar General -
23 April 2020
Tony DeBone, Patti Adair, and Phil Henderson
Deschutes County Commissioners
tonyd@deschutes.org
Dear Commissioners DeBone, Adair, and Henderson,
I write to request your assistance in the official re-opening of COVID-19 restrictions on religious services in Oregon.
As bishop of the Diocese of Baker I have oversight responsibility for the 57 Catholic parishes and mission east of the Cascades to the Idaho border, and south of the Columbia River to California. A handful of our churches have sizeable congregations (Bend, Klamath Falls, Hermiston, Redmond); most are much smaller (Prineville, Burns, Lakeview); and a number are very small indeed (Jordan Valley, Wasco). The space and seating available to accommodate such varied Sunday Mass populations varies greatly from one town to another, as do the possibilities of arranging them differently and safely.
Whatever their size, however, for the past month each and every church in the Baker Diocese has faithfully observed Governor Brown’s social gathering orders. On 19 March I announced the cancellation of all public Masses within the diocese, and that decree remains in effect until further notice.
Our parishioners accept the Governor’s guidelines as a temporary necessity to contain coronavirus because they appreciate the gravity of the COVID threat. But as the weeks go by and we all get used to social distancing in supermarkets and pharmacies, Catholics increasingly feel the need prudently to phase in larger social gathering numbers for churches, comparable to those which other much-visited institutions have learned to live within—or will soon be permitted to open up to.
Looking ahead to that possibility, I have asked each pastor to draw up plans to seat safely in his church various numbers of people that might be allowed to gather there at a time (25, 50, 75, 100, 250). Drawing on his parishioners’ common sense and common self-interest, how would he partition his church in a way that effectively enforces social distancing? Like people on the way to the grocery store, our parishioners know what it takes to “guarantee” their safety in public these days. They will rightly insist on the same precautions in worship, and that assurance we mean to give them.
We are in a crisis, and the Governor is responsible to protect the common good of the whole state, which includes the good of religious worship. The Governor has wisely invited the “most- affected” industries to contribute their informed input to the decision of how and when best to open up their “sector” of the economy. Should she not seek the informed counsel of religious believers about the optimal ways of opening up their distinctive sector of society?
Regrettably, her “Reopening Oregon” framework of 20 April shows no interest in conducting such an inquiry. The section on “Specific Types of Employers” contrasts the Phase One Federal criteria that allow the opening up of “large venues” like churches (“strict physical distancing and sanitation protocols”) with “Oregon Modifications Under Consideration” (“Likely remain closed during Phase One”). Later, in “For Discussion—Under Consideration” for Oregon, we learn of “sector-specific discussions” beginning 20 April, a “next step” to “consult with most-affected industries” that commenced on 17 April, and “workgroups for six sectors being established” on a date unspecified. In each of these listings the same candidates for consultation rightly appear: restaurants, retail, childcare, personal services, transit, and outdoor recreation; in none of them do we read the word “churches.” I am hoping you will agree this is an oversight in need of swift and sincere repair and that you will work to give churches a voice in their reopening just as hair and nail salons, and massage and tattoo parlors have been granted in theirs.
To give priority for reopening to “essential” over “non-essential” businesses is to ask the wrong question, one writer observed. What counts is not whether a business is essential or non-essential but whether it can be run safely.
Boeing is calling back 20,000 workers to what must be a socially distanced job site reasonably certain to keep COVID at bay. It shouldn’t be too much to ask that churches be given the chance to demonstrate the same possibility on a much smaller-scale.
Thank you in advance for your kind attention to this request.Respectfully,
Bishop Liam Cary -
DECREE
UPDATE OF DECREE OF 19 MARCH 2020
ON MEASURES IN RESPONSE TO THE COVID-19 THREATWhereas it is impossible to know at this date how long the national guidelines on social distancing and Oregon Governor Kate Brown’s prohibition of groups larger than 25 persons will remain in effect, the cancellation of public Masses within The Diocese of Baker is hereby extended from 14 April 2020 to “until further notice.” The dispensation of all the faithful in The Diocese of Baker and other Catholics actually present in The Diocese is likewise extended indefinitely.
I order that this decree and dispensation be made known to all concerned, especially pastors and administrators.
This decree and dispensation take effect immediately.
Given at the Pastoral Center of The Diocese of Baker this 7th day of April 2020, everything to the contrary notwithstanding.
Most Reverend Liam Cary
Bishop of Baker
(Seal)
Very Reverend Richard O. Fischer
Vicar General
Decree (pdf)
-
1. "The Easter Triduum . . . cannot be transferred to another time.”
26 March 2020
Dear Brothers and Sisters of the Diocese of Baker,
Grace to you and peace in the midst of world-shaking uncertainty. I hope this finds you in good health and, more importantly, in good spirits, as we continue our journey to Easter through a Lent like no other.
I write to update you on important information regarding upcoming liturgical celebrations from the Congregation for Divine Worship in Rome. (Quotations in the following paragraphs are from the official document unless otherwise specified.)
2. The local bishop may postpone the Chrism Mass to a later date, and that is what this bishop is doing. We’ll wait until the crisis has passed and all the priests can gather fearlessly for the renewal of priestly promises and the blessing of the holy oils. When that will be, no one can say. But the day will come! And we hope you can too.
3. With regard to the Holy Week, “in the Cathedral and in parish churches, though without the physical participation of the faithful, the Bishop and parish priest(s) can celebrate the liturgical mysteries” on the three holy days. “The faithful should be informed of the times of the celebration so that they can prayerfully unite themselves in their homes.” For these occasions “live (not recorded) televisual or internet broadcasts are helpful.”
4. Holy Thursday. “The faculty to celebrate Mass on this day in a suitable place, without the people, is granted in an exceptional manner to all priests. The washing of feet . . . is to be omitted. At the end of the Mass of the Lord’s Supper the procession with the Blessed Sacrament to the place of repose is to be omitted and the Blessed Sacrament is to be kept in the tabernacle.”
5. Good Friday. Insofar as “there is a real possibility of doing so” (that is, without exceeding the number of people permitted at social gatherings when that day comes), “the Bishop/Parish Priest will celebrate the Passion of the Lord. In the Universal Prayer, the Bishop will see to it that there is a special intention for the sick, the dead, for those who feel lost or dismayed.”
6. Easter Vigil. Here too it will be necessary to respect the social gathering limits in force at the time in selecting a much reduced number of servers and lectors. “At ‘The Solemn Beginning of the Vigil’ the preparation and lighting of the fire is omitted, the Paschal Candle is lit, the procession is omitted and the Easter Proclamation (Exsultet) follows. The ‘Liturgy of the Word’ then takes place” as usual. “For the ‘Baptismal Liturgy’ the ‘Renewal of Baptismal Promises’ alone is necessary. The ‘Liturgy of the Eucharist’ then follows.”
7. Easter Sunday. Mass will be celebrated as usual, but without the presence of the people.In a recent memo Archbishop Leonard Blair of Hartford, Chairman of the Bishops’ Committee on Divine Worship, had some additional clarifications. For the Adoration of the Holy Cross on Good Friday, he suggested, “it will surely be best, if more than one person is assisting, to express reverence to the Cross without kissing or touching it. A genuflection or profound bow would be appropriate.”
With regard to the RCIA, Archbishop Blair notes that the Rite itself “includes provision for a delay in the celebration of the sacraments” and other options such as the following:
“the bishop can dispense from the Scrutinies . . . ;” he “can permit an abbreviated form of initiation . . . ; and the rites can be celebrated at other times of the year.” This bishop elects to do all of the above. Therefore, the Rites of Initiation for the 2020 Easter Vigil will not take place in the Diocese of Baker until pastors receive the go-ahead from the bishop. Once we know when it will be possible again to assemble together in Church, each parish will be free to work out its own schedule of initiation to best accommodate its own particular circumstances. We will not attempt to replicate the Easter Vigil—every parish celebrating on the same date—but rather each parish will choose the best date for itself.
Finally, a word about Confirmations. We will not adhere to the current schedule, and there are too many uncertainties to put together another one at present. The new arrangements will probably involve a mixture of my delegating individual pastors to confirm their own parishioners with deanery-wide celebrations (multiple parishes at one time) at which I will officiate. More details when they become possible to devise.
I hope this letter has clarified some uncertainties and relieved some anxieties. There are more than enough of both floating around in the COVID-19 world. But God knows how to bring us through them to peace in His will. Let us pray for the wisdom to follow His lead.
In Christ our Redeemer,
Most Reverend Liam Cary
Bishop of Baker -
March 18, 2020
Dear brothers and sisters in Christ,
It’s hard to keep pace with the corona virus. The letter I wrote you last week on 13 March limiting Mass attendance to 250 people was out of date only a few days later, when Governor Brown’s directive of 16 March lowered the number for social gatherings in Oregon to 25 for the next four weeks, with the recommendation that it be capped at 10.
It is not realistically possible to restrict the populations of our Sunday assemblies to these numbers; therefore, with great reluctance, I must tell you that all public Masses throughout the Diocese are cancelled through 14 April 2020, and all the faithful of the Diocese of Baker are hereby dispensed from the obligation to attend Sunday Mass during that time.
I take this most unwelcome decision in concert with my fellow bishops throughout the Northwest and much of the United States. With them I recognize that in a time of public emergency it is the government’s paramount responsibility to protect the common good of its citizens, and never more so than when their health and their very lives are gravely endangered.
This year the danger falls during Holy Week and Easter, the most sacred days on our calendar; so the empty churches are painfully difficult to bear. But the Holy Spirit is very much at work in our midst. Throughout the country people are coming up with ways to give us access to the Holy Mysteries even as we are cut off from them. In the parishes and in the Pastoral Center possibilities are beginning to emerge. Our findings will be posted on the diocesan website (www.dioceseofbaker.org) and will be updated frequently. Please come and visit to learn how you can profit spiritually from this season of grace.
Our Lord fasted forty days and forty nights, “and He was hungry.” Lent 2020 brings home to us as never before how we hunger for the Bread of Life and the Word of Salvation. “I will see you again, and your hearts will rejoice,” Jesus promises. “I will not leave you orphans.” Recent statistics on COVID-19 show one number is rising: those who have recovered from the virus. Lent leads to Resurrection.In Christ our Redeemer,
Most Reverend Liam Cary
Bishop of BakerLetter (pdf) and Decree (pdf) in English
